Yesterday (31 Jan 08) I replied to a comment made to a post I made http://orangepolitics.org/2008/01/how-green-is-carrboros-parking on Ruby's blog, OrangePolitics.org. Someone, very likely her, removed the comment. She informed me Ruby Sinreich 1 Feb 2008 15:21:15 -0000 > You need to find a way to make your points without resorting > to this kind of language. Unfortunately I can't cite the language, since it has been removed and I did not save a copy. (One should not be so careless.) > Your comments will be moderated until you can be trusted to discuss > issues in a less inflammatory and more productive way. > = Ruby as The Editor to which I replied as follows: From: Tom_Roche@pobox.com To: editor@orangepolitics.org Date: 1 Feb 2008 16:36:20 -0000 Subject: [OrangePolitics] Re: "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" Ruby Sinreich 1 Feb 2008 15:21:15 -0000 > You need to find a way to make your points without resorting to this > kind of language. Why? As previously noted, the respondee said http://orangepolitics.org/2008/01/how-green-is-carrboros-parking#comment-456 > [Carrboro] employees and clients/customers must be able to work here > and shop here and eat here... and park here. As I pointed out, this asserts a right to affordable fuel and pollution. Such a right doesn't exist (i.e. the claim is intellectually invalid) and shouldn't (i.e. the claim is morally invalid). So what's the basis for your objection? Allow me to offer a hypothesis based on the following data: 1 I note that you not only moderated my previous response to DeVine, but have removed it. (Or, at least, it has been removed. Did you not do that?) Yet you allow Steve Wells' rants, e.g. http://orangepolitics.org/2008/01/how-green-is-carrboros-parking#comment-449 > You spend an entire message personally attacking me, but you never > once answer my argument. (despite my clear rebuttal of the small amount of argument actually advanced in http://orangepolitics.org/2008/01/how-green-is-carrboros-parking#comment-443 ) and > You have never cited real sources - fake laws don't count and > ceteris paribus is Latin phrase of limited meaning. (whatever that means :-) 2 You publically favor certain participants, regardless of the views they have actually expressed, e.g. http://orangepolitics.org/2008/01/how-green-is-carrboros-parking#comment-445 > I have been trying to think of a local elected official that is more > personally and politically comitted to the environment and the > future sustainability of this community than Mark Chilton. A few may > tie him, but in my opinion none exceed his level of environmental > advocacy. 3 You seem to favor posts by [DeVine] ("Ruby knows best") and Wells (e.g. "Agree with you Ruby", "Keep up the fight Mark") that shmooze you and your friends, no matter how [overt] their personally attacks on others, e.g. http://orangepolitics.org/2008/01/how-green-is-carrboros-parking#comment-443 > The hostility is because Tom doesn't have a leg to stand on. So it's difficult not to draw the conclusion that you will not only condemn, but *censor* (presuming it was you who removed my response to DeVine--please correct the attribution if wrong), rebuttals of the views of your personal friends if you find the language in any way objectionable, but will allow attacks on those who are not your personal friends. By contrast I merely *rebut* personal attacks on me, no matter how much they might misrepresent what I have actually said, e.g. http://orangepolitics.org/2008/01/how-green-is-carrboros-parking#comment-433 > Mark Chilton wrote: You can't ignore the economic reality > that downtown businesses depend on having parking available > as one of several sources of customers. > Tom Roche wrote: Sure I can! > Okay, so you can. But I can't and won't but would not censor. Frankly, your behavior in this matter is of the sort that helped create, and helps persist, the "PC" stereotype, and legitimizes such attacks by our political foes. You may be able to do this in private now, but, should you repeat it, you will likely be exposed, whereupon *all* of us on the left, not just you, will suffer thereby. FWIW, Tom Roche